• Philosophy of liberty is grounded upon the principle of self-ownership. You are the owner of your own life, what you choose to do with your life is then your liberty.

• John Stuart Mill is concerned with liberty as a negative concept, as the ability to be free from the constraints of both the government and also the tyranny of the majority. However his definition of liberty does not completely fit in with the negative liberty concept as his aim is for the individual to become autonomous and to develop themselves and live their life as they see fit. This self-realisation is more like the concept of positive liberty because it requires more than just the absence of other people interfering (the external constraint,), it involves the individual growing which involves an absence of internal constraint.

• In On Liberty Mill argues for maximizing individual liberty using an utilitarian argument that when simplified equates to: society is in danger of stagnating if progress is not made, geniuses are needed to progress society, geniuses come from individuality, individuality comes best in a liberated society, therefore unnecessary limitations upon citizens liberty is unacceptable. In his words, a person should have freedom in ‘that portion of a person’s life and conduct which affects only himself or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntarily, and undeceived consent and participation’. He later expands upon the ‘affects only himself’ part to clarify that it involves only actions affecting others directly, rather than affect them through him. So if I was to deliberately hurt myself my family may be emotionally hurt by this, but because it only affects them through me (because they care for me) and it doesn’t actually harm them in their self then according to Mill they would have no right to interfere.

• There are three types of freedom that Mill details. Freedom of action, allowing us to act however we please as long as it involves no harm to others. Freedom of thought, which is ‘absolute freedom of opinion… on all subjects’. And finally, Freedom of association, allowing us to form groups for any purpose that involves no harm to others.

• Mill’s idea of Freedom of thought involves never censoring an opinion, he is a fallibilist and believes we can never be 100% certain of anything. His argument for this is even if everyone minus one is of the same opinion, the lone opinion should not be silenced by the majority because it could actually be true. Even if it is false then it will reinforce the ‘old truth’ already believed and stop it becoming ‘dead dogma’. Alternatively it may not be fully the truth or completely false, it may just contain a portion of truth which allows us to come closer to the real truth. As Mill puts it, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still”. This is a step on from Plato’s philosopher kings of the Republic who were all knowing infallible beings who censored only false beliefs. Mill actually realises that although a belief may seem concrete and undeniably the truth at this moment in time, there is a large chance that in the future we will be proved at least partly wrong.

• Similarly, Mills idea of Freedom of action involves the state and society as a whole never unnecessarily interfering with our actions. He argues that the interference may be wrong, in the sense that we would now be in a worse situation thanks to the interference. Even if it is not wrong, the ability to interfere would add too much power to the state, the very opposite of what Mill is trying to achieve. Also he says that the best judge of what is right for an individual, is the individual, because it is them that know themselves most. However Dworkin says that a law such as one that makes bicycle wearers wear helmets even against their wishes is not contrary to their liberty, tha law would be justifiable as long as it allows them to preserve a wider range of freedoms. As Mill says, ‘liberty is doing as one desires’, and the individual desires to get to their destination unharmed, then they have more freedom than if they were killed whilst riding the bicycle.

• Mills entire concept of liberty, and his reasoning for maximizing it, relies on a few assumptions he has made. Firstly, that the individual has a will of their own. This is something many philosophers and also scientists actually disagree with, saying that it is in fact Physics or causation that is responsible for our actions. Causation is the view that it is our prior experiences that determines our future actions. However Mills liberated society will have different prior experiences than the society of strong government interference. Who is to say that in fact the more restrictive society would not produce the genius that Mill says is crucial to progress? Perhaps it is the experiences of a restrictive society that will encourage the genius’ mind in ways that a much more free society may not. For example some of the best thinkers or inventors have created with the mindset of ‘Why is this like this?’, or ‘How can I improve this?’, which is working within barriers already made. Even if individuals do have free will, would they want the almost complete freedom that Mill offers? It is not unheard of for individuals, in settings of such freedom, to instead choose to turn to controlling intolerant organised institutions such as certain life-style religions or gangs for a sense of belonging, rules and stability. Many could actually thrive more off this type of situation. Mill would argue that by following others rules the individual would only be doing ‘ape like imitation’, but maybe even imitation is preferable if the alternative is a free society that leaves the individual feeling lost.

• Another of Mills assumptions is that individuals are better off when not forced or driven to do better, and that they wont act contrary to their own interest. Sometimes the good of us doing something is not always self evident. e.g. student may not see long-term benefit of studying but generally we are happier later if pushed. Generally we choose what is easiest for us or what is right for us now, whereas it can be good for someone to push and motivate us to do better but sometimes this needs to be a bit more than a push e.g. lazy slob living off benefits needs law to stop them profiting from others work.

• Another crucial assumption that Mill makes is that liberty is source of improvement, and that we learn from mistakes and make moral progress. However this is certainly debatable. Are humans not constantly repeating our mistakes? To quote a famous saying, always ‘history repeats itself’. If we aren’t going to learn from them then experiments of living could do more harm than good. Mills utilitarian emphasis means the goal of liberty is to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However there has undeniably been an increase in diversity and liberty since mill wrote his book, but can we really say that there is a greater overall happiness now?

• Mill values liberty above all other values, in fact you could say he values liberty at the expense of other values. He admits that there is not much place for equality in his society, there would be a clear difference between the normal individual and the genius, especially material inequality. Security is another value Mill neglects in the name of progress. For example Hobbes, who also believed in the value of negative liberty, came to the conclusion that it must be limited to a certain extent to protect from anarchy and civil war.

• Undoubtedly Mills biggest contribution to the philosophy of liberty is the Harm Principle. Unlike some philosophers who believe that there are intrinsically right or wrong acts, Mill never proposes it to be intrinsically correct. In fact it is the opposite, and is right because of its positive outcome. By that I mean the biggest eudaimonistic happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill’s Harm Principle, also known as the Principle of Liberty, says ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.’ So for example if I was to use illegal drugs whilst my child was at nursery then no-one else is harmed and it doesn’t directly affect my ability to look after my child because they aren’t in my care while I am under the influence. However if I was to take drugs whilst looking after my child it would directly affect my ability to look after my child, and I have the responsibility to look after its welfare. Mill says its is only when harm is ‘direct and in the first instance’ that the Harm Principle applies but what if due to my drug taking I was to overdose leaving the child without a parent? Mill says exceptions to the Harm Principle include where you have a duty or responsibility. In On liberty Mill actually mentions that in bringing a child into the world, you have a responsibility to ensure it is fed and educated. Surely it is my responsibility to take care of myself the best I can so that I am in the best state to look after, and provide for, my child. Yet when I am taking the drugs (while child is at nursery) it does not count as direct harm, until the moment I overdosed in which it becomes direct harm as I am not fulfilling my responsibility to the child. An overdose would be an accident, so obviously you could not say it is acceptable for you to take drugs when your child is not around, as long as you do not go and directly affect them by dying. But if you were to say do not take illegal drugs at all because of the potential harm, it would go against Mills harm principle and too many things could be banned for the potential damage they may cause. There is not a simple way of reconciling this with Mills Harm Principle. Similarly, if I was to take an abandoned car and drive it without a licence I would not necessarily cause any harm, but there has to be a rule against this as the potential harm could cause so much damage. In his Applications chapter Mill allows that certain things which are acceptable in private should be regulated in public, for example cases of public indecency, because they are a violation of good manners. Good manners is in itself an extremely subjective term, dependant on many factors. However, by allowing things to be regulated just because of their indecency he is accepting that offence is a reason to regulate actions, which goes against what he previously said, and undermines the entire rule.

As they demand that the Leader of the British National Party and the Historian who denies the Holocaust be prevented from using the debate as a platform for their views they also lower themselves to that same nonsensical level. Is it that student protest still sees itself through romantic spectacles as they perceive themselves to be manning the barricades of rebellion against the forces of tyranny and of repression? Do they see themselves as the defenders of freedom when in fact they are the real fascists who deny that freedom to others?

Such protests serve to open the way for the real hard men of violence to take over what could be a peaceful protest. Such protests show both the ignorance and the arrogance of those who organise and support them.

In a few years time, many of the students who support such protests, will become leading members of the political classes. Many of them will find well-paid middle class jobs as lawyers, teachers, or top-level civil servants. There is some arrogance with which members of the present political classes today look back on their own youthful protesting. They view it with complacency as if it were somehow meritorious or some sort of slightly misguided though understandable youthful enthusiasm. Where, one wonders, are the real intellectuals who consider their possible actions to decide the likely outcomes and whether they are desirable?

The suspicion arises that it is, not the cause that matters, but the opportunity to join a crowd. Any cause would do as long as it engenders a feeling of being part of a movement and of doing something in the name of freedom, or justice, or right. No one asks whether what they are doing is just, or right, or free, it just has to feel that way. Being part of a crowd one is easily susceptible towards doing something foolish, as long as everyone else is doing it.

There really is very little difference between the protests of the sons and daughters of the middle classes and the rioting gangs or working class jobs and the violent disorder of football hooligans. It is only the middle class aspirations of the one which make any difference. The motives are the same and the results are the same.

Freedom of speech and a cultural regime of tolerance of the antics of the young is, rightly, something we have enjoyed for many years. However attitudes are hardening and those in authority often lose no opportunity of becoming authoritarian. We already, some years ago, had the ridiculous situation where Jerry Adams could not speak his own words on television but had them read for him. Adams and his friends may be Sinn Fein thugs but we ought not to have stopped them speaking their thuggery for all to hear and for all to judge. The same applies to Nick Griffin and David Irving. If their views are wrong, then let them air them for all to hoot at with amusement and mock their ridiculous nature. Let their ill-conceived ideas be expressed and let them be seen for the clowns they are.

The issue, however, is far more serious. Free speech is a two-edged blade. It allows the fool to make a fool of himself. It allows the bigot to publicize his bigotry and it allows the ignorant to display his ignorance. It also allows the public to judge these things and lacking opportunity to do so it deprives the public of an active part in serious debate.

Deny the bigot, the chauvinist and the violent a platform and they will be forced underground where they gain a hearing from the ignorant, the romantic driven by emotion and the failure who wants to present himself as a martyr or simply as misunderstood Deny them the right to freedom of speech and you deny it to all. The still small voice of rationality and common sense soon gets drowned out by the noise of the crowd.

J.S. Mill defended the right to free speech in two ways. “We can never be sure,” he writes, “that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion.” He then goes on to point out, “and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still”.

It may be that the thing we want to stifle could be true. If we prevent it being expressed we may do a disservice, not only to those who hold it but to ourselves and to others. Take it that it is true and that we are in the wrong. We do well, then to listen since we may learn and receive correction. To refuse the holder of the opinion we disagree with, a platform is then to refuse rationality and to be guilty of injustice.

It must be the character of rationality that one listens to those who disagree so that one may learn. One may also be able to correct the speaker. On the other hand, in most cases where people hold varying views, it is not one or the other who is right but that both might be in the wrong, in the whole or in part. Discussion therefore is essential to learning and one who wants to stop the expression of his opponent’s views is guilty of bigotry at worse, or of keeping himself and others in ignorance at best.

Mill also argues, not without reason, that to prevent the expression of others is to assume to oneself infallibility. To err is human and therefore it is likely that we can never know fully all about the situation where we are in conflict with others. Indeed, since humility is a virtue, it becomes us to listen with profound attention to the other and not to judge, trusting that he, if he has the same humility, will also listen to us. So together we may both progress a little way towards a clearer knowledge of the matter and to an understanding of one another.

It is worth quoting the much used famous sentence from On Liberty to end this discussion in the hope that we all can work together toward a more tolerant attitude to each other and to the race as a whole. He says: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Of course it will be argued by those who disagree with me, (and they may be right) that we ought not to allow Hitlers, Stalins and assorted rabid demagogues to have their say. One agrees that such people are offensive in the extreme. However no one really listened to them until there was a breakdown in society due to extreme human folly in allowing wars and such to break out. Where rationality and the rule of law hold sway we have nothing to fear from such madmen since they will only be laughed at. It is only in a sick and emotionally diseased society that people in despair listen to such rabid burblings. The cure for the ills of societies lies, not in repression, but in free speech and in open debate and rational argument.